PC 2004 10 19
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Bethany Tjornhom, Kurt Papke,
Rich Slagle and Craig Claybaugh
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Matt
Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL
BUILDING LOCATED AT HIGHWAYS 7 AND 41, PLANNING CASE N0. 04-34.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dave Willadsen 2325 Melody Hill
Brian Mundstock 9905 Johnson Circle
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. No questions? Any questions? Yes,
Steve.
Lillehaug: I have one. Looking on your layout there, there is a building in the southwest
corner of the site. With this new building, in the southwest. There you go. With the new
building there, it seems like it’s going to be covering up and I apologize. I didn’t get out
there to see what that store frontage is, but it looks like that new building is going to be
covering a portion of that store front up. Is that okay by the tenants and the owner of that
building in the southwest there?
Al-Jaff: It is the same owner for both.
Lillehaug: But are there any concerns with covering up a good portion of that store front
there?
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: It actually isn’t a store front. Not on the north, short end there. Isn’t it on the
little piece that sticks out kind of towards the east. See what I’m talking about?
Lillehaug: That’d be the west side.
Sacchet: Yes. Yeah, that corner is the store front.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: The corner is the store front. Not necessarily the very north, that short stretch
of the building there.
Lillehaug: So there’s no concerns with that then.
Al-Jaff: I haven’t heard anything from anyone.
Sacchet: But we can ask the applicant. Yeah, good question. Any other questions?
With that, I’ll open the public hearing. This is open for comments from anybody who’d
like to speak up. If you want to come forward. Oh no, the applicant first. Sorry. Sorry,
before, I’m ahead of myself. Does the applicant want to come forward? Yeah, if you
want to add anything to what Sharmeen presented. Sorry, I got my sequence a little
garbled here. We’ll get to you in a minute.
Brian Mundstock: My name is Brian Mundstock. I’m with Sunday Engineering. We’re
the consulting civil engineers for the project and been working with Sharmeen on the
approvals with respect to the green space and the amount of impervious and all those
questions regarding storm water management. With respect to the store front, Sharmeen
was right. It’s the same owner and I know in my meetings with the overall owner, I
know he’s been discussing that and that’s something that he’s working with his tenants.
And one of the reasons, one of the things you’ll notice on the site plan is that this
building has been moved forward into the parking lot a little bit more than the original
master plan, so it’s been brought forward. There’s a little bit more green space on this
plan than was on the original drawing, and I guess one of the reasons he’s doing that is to
try to keep that building from getting too hidden behind this forward building. And I
guess Sharmeen did a good job, if you’ve got any questions.
Sacchet: Okay, questions from the applicant.
Claybaugh: No questions.
Sacchet: Does that satisfy your question from before Steve? Okay. Thank you very
much. Now with that, we get to the public hearing. So I open the public hearing. If
there’s anybody who wants to speak up, please come forward. State your name and
address for the record. You may want to pull the microphone a little bit up towards your
face.
2
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Dave Willadsen: I’m Dave Willadsen. I live 2325 Melody Hill, which is a property.
Can I point on here?
Sacchet: Yes you can.
Dave Willadsen: It’d be back in here.
Sacchet: Opposite of 41?
Dave Willadsen: Yeah. I’d just ask you to bear in mind that this is becoming a real crap
shoot sometimes. Getting out onto that highway. And this particular project here
probably is, you know by the looks of it, it’s not large in comparison to everything else
but when you come out here and try to go this way, the whole traffic patterns are kind of
scary right in there.
Sacchet: So left turns are problematic?
Dave Willadsen: Yeah. And with the Cub up here, you get an awful lot of traffic along
here. Being unlighted, it’s kind of a scary proposition right in there. But like I say, this
particular project, maybe it’s not really relevant to that.
Sacchet: Well I appreciate you bringing it up. Do you want to address that from an
engineering side?
Saam: I’ll just say that right now there’s a stop control at that intersection. I don’t
believe, as the gentleman said, that this development is going to require a signal to be
justified there. Just based on the traffic and.
Sacchet: We’re not quite there yet.
Saam: Yeah. I don’t think so but.
Sacchet: Thank you bringing it up. Anybody else wants to comment to this project?
This is your chance. I see nobody getting up so I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it
back to the commission for discussion, comments. Anybody want to start? You want to
start? Go ahead Kurt.
Papke: I support this. This is the right spot for a project like this. With the expansion of
the strip mall on the other side of Highway 7 with the new Cub, very appropriate for the
location for this to be, to move forward so I have no issues with it. It looks, it’s the right
development at the right spot.
Sacchet: Anybody else want to add anything to this? Steve.
Lillehaug: One quick comment here. It looks like staff recommended, requiring a
lighting plan. And it looks like we might need to add a condition on that so.
3
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: The condition of lighting plan is not in there, is that your point?
Lillehaug: Unless I’m missing it somewhere.
Sacchet: Alright, we can add that.
Lillehaug: I support it.
Sacchet: Okay. Any other comments? Points? Okay. I don’t have anything to add so
with that I’d be happy to take a motion.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
04-34 for a 6,400 square foot retail building and a conditional use permit to allow
multiple buildings on a single lot as shown on the plans dated received September 17,
2004, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 17 and add 18. A detailed lighting
plan is required and only shielded fixtures are allowed as prescribed by ordinance.
Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: I’ll second.
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Site Plan 04-34 for a 6,400 square foot retail building and a conditional
use permit to allow multiple buildings on a single lot as shown on the plans dated
received September 17, 2004, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall preserve all existing trees outside of the grading limits. Any trees
removed outside of the limits will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
2. Applicant shall install tree preservation fence at the edge of grading limits along
the west property line and around the landscape island in the parking lot.
3. All plans must be signed by a registered civil engineer in the State of Minnesota.
4. Show the dimensions of the new parking stalls on the site plan. The new parking
stalls are required to be 9 feet wide.
5. Add the latest City Standard Detail Plate Nos. 1006, 2101, 3101, 3102, 5300,
5302A.
6. On the plans, show the proposed water pipe CL52 and sewer class SDR35.
7. On the grading plan:
a. Add a benchmark.
b. Add a legend.
4
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
c. Show the parking stall grades for the accessible stall. The maximum slope
must not exceed 2%.
8. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections
through the City’s Building Department.
9. The applicant must show the location/elevation of an emergency overflow point
along the west side of the building that is 1.5 feet lower than the proposed
building elevation.
10. Storm sewer sizing calculations will be required at the time of building permit
application. The proposed storm sewer must be sized for a 10 year storm event.
11. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the new building.
The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814
per unit for watermain. The 2004 SAC charge is $1,425 per unit. All of these
charges are based on the number of SAC units calculated by the Met Council.
These charges will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Sanitary
sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Yellow curbing and “no parking fire lane” signs will be required. Contact the
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and location of
signs to be installed.
b. The building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division Policies 34-1993, 36-1994, 29-1991, 07-1991, 06-1991, and 04-
1991. Copies enclosed.
13. Building Official conditions:
a. The building is required to be protected by automatic fire extinguishing
systems.
b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
c. Submit a site plan indicating the location of all property lines.
d. An eight foot access aisle is required for the accessible parking space.
e. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete
plans are submitted.
f. The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections
Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
14. All roof top equipment shall be screened.
15. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary financial securities.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
16. Wall signs shall be permitted on the east elevation of the building only and must
comply with Neighborhood Business District requirements. The applicant must
obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signs on site. A detailed sign plan
incorporating the method of lighting acceptable to staff should be provided prior
to requesting a sign permit.
17. The applicant shall provide a survey signed by a registered land surveyor
verifying that the hard surface coverage on this site does not exceed 65%.
18. A detailed lighting plan is required and only shielded fixtures are allowed as
prescribed by ordinance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE FOR LOCATING A STRUCTURE AND GRADING WITHIN THE
BLUFF ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8850 AUDUBON ROAD, PLANNING
CASE NO. 04-33.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve & Mary Pat Monson 8850 Audubon Road
Dennis & Ruth Chadderdon 8900 Audubon Road
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Steve, you want to jump in?
Lillehaug: I have a couple questions. On the second page, and I think you also reiterated
it. There’s two walls approximately 3 feet in height. They graded the driveway out
there. You say all of these improvements were made without a permit. You don’t need a
permit for any of that work.
Metzer: Right, and that’s why in the presentation I said or zoning compliance. I failed to
mention that in the report.
Lillehaug: And is that something, one of the new zoning permits that we require now, is
that it? I mean brand new within the last couple months? Is that right?
Al-Jaff: It’s part of the amended ordinances. However, if you are grading within a bluff,
that’s not a permitted action. And as far as the retaining wall, I don’t know if Matt you
would like to address that.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Saam: Sure, retaining walls under 4 feet you don’t need a permit, but if you are grading
in the right-of-way for a driveway connection, Audubon Road is city owned and
controlled, then you would need a right-of-way permit.
Lillehaug: So you’re saying there’s grading that took place within county right-of-way?
Saam: Audubon there is city. City owned.
Lillehaug: Okay, city.
Saam: I’m saying if you are grading in a driveway and you grade into the right-of-way,
then you would need it. If he exactly did that, I’m not sure where the right-of-way line is
in reference to where he graded. Where his gravel starts. I guess we didn’t check that,
but I just wanted to clarify if he had gone into the right-of-way, then a permit would have
been required.
Lillehaug: Alright. One other question. And it would be pertaining to a residence, a
couple residences to the west there, I mean there’s a new house that was built there…3 to
4 years ago. It looks like that whole house is built on a bluff. Can you comment on that?
Al-Jaff: Sure. Mr. Monson stopped by city hall earlier today and asked the exact same
question, and Josh, Matt and I looked at the site and each calculated separately and we
came up with a 20 percent, between 20 and 21 percent slope. The ordinance requires 25?
Saam: 30.
Al-Jaff: 30, I’m sorry. 30 percent.
Lillehaug: It’s the same bluff though.
Al-Jaff: It’s the same bluff. However.
Sacchet: It doesn’t qualify based on the steepness.
Al-Jaff: Yeah, the steepness is substantially less.
Lillehaug: So over there you’re saying they could build anywhere on that, anywhere on
that slope.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Lillehaug: Where that new house is a couple down. But on this property it’s considered
a bluff, and what’s the actual grade of the bluff then? Is it right at 25 percent or?
Steeper?
7
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Saam: Are you asking what the grade of the bluff on the applicant’s property is or what
the definition of the bluff is?
Lillehaug: Both.
Saam: Okay, the definition is a 25 foot elevation drop with a 30 percent, basically 3 to 1
slope or grade. And I believe the applicant is right at, Sharmeen add, he’s right in that 33
percent area. 30 percent.
Al-Jaff: And the other thing that we did was, we actually asked the applicant to hire a
registered land surveyor to look at the slope and tell us whether this is a bluff or not, and
the conclusion was that it was a bluff.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Al-Jaff: And the grading that took place was within the bluff.
Lillehaug: That’s all the questions I have.
Slagle: If I can ask, so the applicant after your request did hire a surveyor.
Al-Jaff: That is correct.
Slagle: Okay. And they came back with that. Let me ask this question Sharmeen.
Using the average citizen who would look at something like this, in your opinion would it
be quite obvious that this slope would require someone to do something? And I don’t
want to put you on the spot but I’m just saying, place yourself as an average citizen, do
you see that, I mean right away someone say wait a minute. Something has to be looked
at here. Just trying to get a gauge. Because I mean, again if we go to the neighbor to the
west who built this big house, I’m just wondering if I was a citizen and I looked over, I
don’t know if I would know 20 some percent to 30 some percent.
Al-Jaff: I honestly don’t know but, and I don’t know whether this issue came up or not.
The applicant did go through a subdivision a few years back. Whether the issue of the
bluff was raised at that point or not.
Slagle: Okay. We don’t know if it was? At the time.
Al-Jaff: I don’t know.
Slagle: Okay. Matt, you were going to say something.
Saam: Yeah, Commissioner Slagle. I’ll just add, you know in our department quite often
we get people coming in asking, you know say in this case. You’re looking to do a
garage. Well what are the requirements. I guess yes, I do see it probably at least once a
week during a summer season, somebody will come in or if they want to move a
8
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
significant amount of dirt or do a retaining wall. Now if it’s just a gravel driveway,
maybe not. But when you’re talking about a garage on a hill where you’re moving dirt
with machinery, I would think most, just my opinion, most citizens, we do see them come
in and ask hey, are there any requirements here. Do you need a permit for this and what
not.
Slagle: Okay. One last question Sharmeen, or Josh. I mean what was the demeanor of
the applicant when the applicant was informed that it was indeed on a bluff and sort of
you have to stop.
Al-Jaff: I think they were fairly surprised. I mean when I initially looked at the survey I
noticed the steep slopes and contacted the applicant and I said, it just seems like severe
slopes and we need someone to provide us with more information. I mean they weren’t
happy about it.
Slagle: And at that point did they provide the information they had already graded it.
Okay. So it was them giving us the information they had graded it versus us discovering
that it was graded.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct. I mean they, the only reason we truly found out about it was
because they applied for a building permit and we contacted them and said you can’t do
this and they said but a retaining wall is in and.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Quite commonly when we have an application for a variance like this, staff
prepares some sort of precedent analysis that you know certain houses in the
neighborhood has this happened before, etc, etc. Do we have any data on this kind of a
grading in a bluff where we have had variances requested, granted, or in this case where
we’ve had to go in and have a similar situation where we’ve had somebody who has done
the grading before asking for the variance. So what kind of history or precedence do we
have, if any?
Al-Jaff: There isn’t anything within 500 feet.
Papke: Okay, and that’s the requirement that you have for staff to only examine
properties within 500 feet. So there has been no precedent in the area. I realize this is
kind of putting you on the spot, but across the city are there any cases of precedent where
we’ve had a similar situation?
Al-Jaff: Where someone graded into the bluff?
Papke: Yes.
9
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Saam: Well the recent Moon Valley site that we looked at that we’re now going to be
restored. That one comes to mind. That was years ago. I guess not that I recall since
I’ve been here that I’ve reviewed personally. Usually we flag those.
Lillehaug: The site right north of Moon Valley, the whole development there. There was
a lot of grading within the bluff there I think. Partially on Eden Prairie and Chanhassen,
that development there.
Al-Jaff: Settlers West?
Saam: I don’t know that there was grading into the bluff.
Lillehaug: Into the setback of the bluff.
Saam: That may be, but I know on that one they did protect the bluff and it’s like we had
them do storm sewer to prevent drainage from going over the bluff.
Sacchet: I think we reduced the setback on them but not the bluff.
Claybaugh: Stabilize the bluff wasn’t it? As I understood it.
Papke: Yeah. Okay, so we have no cases, no precedent here of any kind?
Al-Jaff: None that comes to mind right now.
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Tjornhom: Mine was I think historical. Just wanting to know when they did divide their
lots in 1997, if the city, if that code was being, excuse me. Was that code that requires
the preservation of the bluff area in full force? I mean were they told then in 1997 that,
and obviously you don’t know the answer but.
Metzer: I believe the bluff ordinance was adopted in 1992, somewhere in that area. It
was at least a few years before this subdivision occurred.
Tjornhom: Okay. And what are some of the options then that they have for restoring it?
Saam: Well, removal first off of the walls. You know I believe it’s a boulder wall. And
then it’s just stabilizing the slope. I think we listed a maximum of 3 to 1 in there with
blanketing, that sort of thing. Getting some type of vegetation established on there to
keep the slope intact. It’s not as severe a site as the Moon Valley one that I brought to
your attention just a minute ago but some of those same type measures that we’re going
to do there, on a much smaller scale we do here.
Tjornhom: So it looked like in the picture they took out a lot of land or, you know when
I look at the pictures I see.
10
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: Got a cut into the bluff rather than building it.
Tjornhom: Right. What did they do with that, I mean did they dispose of that flat?
Where’d the dirt go, that’s it? Alright, where’d the dirt go? Is the dirt still there?
Metzer: If you look it kind of looks like what they graded, they used to push out and
create the building.
Sacchet: To the retaining wall, okay.
Metzer: There’s two retaining walls. There’s one up. They graded here. Made the
building pad here and another retaining wall down here.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Sacchet: Makes sense.
Claybaugh: Did they set those walls back 4 feet, is that what they did Matt? Not 3, back
4. Not the 3. Something on that configuration?
Saam: Yeah, I don’t believe the walls are, at least the rock part is over 4 feet. So but
yeah, it’s a two tiered one.
Claybaugh: Okay. That in part gets back to what we discussed with the City Council
with respect to the retaining walls and the setbacks and the one thing that would help
circumvent things getting to this point with setting those walls back rather than just
enforcing that 4 foot ordinance. Do you know who performed the excavation out there?
Or would that be a question for the applicant?
Saam: I don’t.
Metzer: A question for an applicant, I’m not sure.
Claybaugh: Do we have any ordinances with respect to pulling a permit with x number
of, once you cross the threshold for cubic yards being moved.
Saam: Yeah, I think.
Metzer: 10 I believe it is.
Claybaugh: And I’m assuming that this certainly qualified for more than 10 yards.
Metzer: Matt was out there with me. I wasn’t sure.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Saam: Yes, yeah just remembering back estimating. Yes, I’m sure it would qualify. We
would ask the applicant if he would have any idea but yeah.
Claybaugh: How far into the bluff using the toe as the reference point would you say that
they’re into it?
Saam: Oh, the width of the.
Metzer: They’re more, they’re very near the top of the bluff.
Saam: Yeah, I guess it was my understanding, and maybe the applicant can add
something that the bluff was here. Maybe the top is cut in but then you, I believe you’d
have to actually fill to get the flat part for the driveway. Or for the garage, so I’m not
sure how far they actually went into the bluff.
Metzer: If you look, there’s a picture in the report giving you an idea of how far from
the, the person who took the picture was standing at the toe of the bluff. I was at the
nearest retaining wall. The edge of the building.
Slagle: So you were the model?
Metzer: Yes.
Sacchet: Oh that’s you. Didn’t recognize you.
Metzer: I had to go in there for a sense of scale.
Sacchet: I thought it was very good to have a person in there, definitely.
Claybaugh: Last thing I would add, probably a little more comment than question with
respect to people recognizing whether there’s a bluff or not. I know that we’ve sat in no
less than 2 round table meetings with developers that had expressed surprise that the land
that they had purchased included as much bluff area as it has. That I know for a fact so
that’s a developer that makes his living doing that. That has already acquired land and is,
finds himself in a position where it’s not what he expected so I certainly could see it very
comfortably happening to a home applicant so, it’s a difficult thing for a homeowner to
know. That’s all I have.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Another follow-up question from Bethany’s line of questioning. If we were to
ask the applicant to push the dirt back up the hill into the cut, what is your assessment of
any additional damage that would be done to the bluff and the vegetation and so on in
that area.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Saam: Short term sure. There would be some but I think in the long term, once it’s, once
the bluff slope is re-established, it’s going to be better for the long term versus having the
garage there and impervious associated runoff, that sort of thing.
Papke: And another follow along question to that. This is fairly close to the Bluff Creek
area, yes. And is there any concern from an engineering perspective of any runoff from
any dirt in this area from the cut or from the re-establishing of the bluff going down into
the Bluff Creek area in terms of silt drainage and so on?
Saam: Sure. There would have to be measures put in place. Silt fence. That sort of
thing prior to any, whether the variance is granted or not, whether restoration is made or
not, silt fence is going to have to be put up prior to any work occurring to prevent what
you just said from happening.
Papke: Is there any silt fence there now?
Saam: Not that I saw. We were out there last Thursday. I think Josh, it wasn’t there
then.
Metzer: Not that information
Sacchet: Few more questions. So our main concern is the erosion and with vegetation
and all that, we can mitigate it reasonably?
Saam: Yes, I do.
Metzer: Others in the planning department felt it could be done also.
Sacchet: And obviously that would apply to both? Whether the shed goes in or not. If
it’s restored or not, either way the re-vegetation would be the remedy, right?
Metzer: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. In the letter from the applicant, it’s end of the first paragraph. The
applicant states the city asked us to change the plotting of the 5 acres to run east and
west, which is what we did. Now that leaves us with 2 ½ acres almost entirely on what is
considered a bluff. That was a city request to do it that way? Were we aware, I don’t
know whether any of us were here then.
Metzer: In the discussion that I’ve heard, just talking about, it was stated that when the
home, the Monson’s home was already constructed at the time that this subdivision took
place. They were proposing a private access to both properties along the south, if it was
to be divided north and south. But that would require the driveway to be built all the way
up the bluff to the Monson home from the south, which.
Al-Jaff: Do you want to show on the overhead?
13
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: Yeah, if you could show us on the layout, that would help.
Metzer: Okay, it was originally, this would be the Monson property before subdivision.
Sacchet: Those two together, okay.
Metzer: Yeah. Originally they wanted, sort of like this with a private access running
along the south. There is a wetland here.
Sacchet: That’s the low side.
Metzer: Right.
Sacchet: That’s the bottom of.
Metzer: Trees and buffer here where the construction building, so this would have
required a driveway from this south portion all the way up to the Monson home over
here. Coming through the bluff which you can see, if that comes out at all. …come up
somewhat in through here to this extreme contour.
Claybaugh: Was that specifically identified at the time that the bluff was the reason, or
one of the primary reasons for reconfiguring that?
Metzer: I’m not sure. Yeah, I was talking to Bob about this and he had mentioned it
would have been coming through the bluff, from my understanding.
Claybaugh: Right, I understand that they’re looking at that, and that’s on the table and
they all realize that now. Was that part of the discussion at that time? Is there any
records available to that effect?
Metzer; Not that I could find.
Al-Jaff: And the staff reports that we found indicate, or there are some discussions
dealing with Bluff Creek, but.
Claybaugh: But what I was specifically after, did they ever identify that the bluff existed
on this site during any of that previous correspondence? That you can identify.
Al-Jaff: It mentioned that the elevations are from 896 to 876 on one of the parcels but
not the one that had the house. So it’s addressing mainly the southern piece, which
would have the proposed future development. But not specifically the Monson piece.
The existing Monson piece that we’re dealing with today.
Claybaugh: Okay.
14
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Al-Jaff: I would also like to remind you that with this scenario the east/west property line
versus the north/south, you have two parcels that actually abut a public street that meet
the minimum ordinance requirements, so just keep that in mind also.
Sacchet: Okay. I have another question here. This is kind of a technicality in the staff
report on page 4, where Finding E states that we are concerned about the dangers of
erosion and danger to the natural character of the land. And then when we look at the
findings after the staff report, the first attachment, Finding E says, the granting of a
variance will not be detrimental to public. The two seem to contradict each other. So I
assume the one in the staff report is what we, what your position is, is that accurate?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Sacchet: Okay. So we may need to line that up with what we’re saying in the Findings
of Fact.
Metzer: Well with the public, I mean residents.
Sacchet: Alright. I think that’s all my questions. With that I’d like to invite the
applicant to come forward. If you want to tell us your version of what’s happening here,
we’d really appreciate it.
Steve Monson: Okay, my name is Steve Monson. I live at 8850 Audubon Road.
Sacchet: Welcome.
Steve Monson: First with this old, when we were going to split the lot we were going to
kind of just, you know it was going to go up like this and over, and then we were going to
just use this driveway that was here. You know the house that got built there, and we
were just going to come off the same driveway because we didn’t want to drive out onto
another spot out here on Audubon. So we were just going to come and then have another
driveway coming onto our lot. But the city wanted us to go out like this instead of like
that.
Sacchet: Was there any mention about the bluff in that context?
Steve Monson: No. They never, I never heard of a bluff. That’s why I.
Sacchet: Right, it’s kind of new. Not so pleasant surprise.
Steve Monson: And the thing was, that house that’s built two doors down, you know
that’s even more on a slope than our house is. That’s the way I look at it. So I never
thought of it. One thing is, you know with the, you guys were talking about the dirt and
what do we do with all of the dirt. Did we push it down the hill? Actually this retaining,
that boulder retaining wall that’s at the top, it’s sloped down from my driveway, down
15
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
about 3 feet. So all we did was just make a little level spot to stack those boulders up. So
then we, when we took this dirt from here and put it behind, that’s what we used.
Sacchet: Moved it up actually.
Steve Monson: Go behind it so I could make my driveway larger. That’s what started
this whole thing was because I wanted to make my driveway bigger so I could turn
around and back up. So we cut about a 5 foot cut in here, and by the time we got out to
the 16 or 18 feet off another edge here, there was… So there wasn’t very much dirt that
came out of there. And then about the vegetation, there’s vegetation on the, there are
places never been you know disrupted or, you know there will never be any erosion
because the vegetation’s just really vegetated. But anyway, when we had bought that
house we were told that we could build anything we wanted on the whole 5 acres or 2 ½
acres at that time. We didn’t see anything about a bluff area, so that didn’t come to mind
either so.
Sacchet: Anything else you’d like to add?
Mary Pat Monson: He’s trying to read my notes.
Sacchet: Maybe you should come up and help him present.
Mary Pat Monson: I’m Mary Pat Monson and I also live at 8850. One other thing that
kind of came up. We put a pool in a few years ago off to the side of the house, and at that
time nothing was ever said about, that we were in the bluff area. We put in some
retaining walls on both edges of the pool and I just think that part of the problem here is,
we put in, made the driveway bigger and then had the flat part. Came in for a building
permit for the garage. And then that’s when they asked us to get a survey because they
thought it was too steep, and you know we kept looking at the house down the street
going well, you know this isn’t nearly as steep as what the house is down there, so there
shouldn’t be any problem. We had the survey done, submitted it and it came back. Well
you have to get a variance. And when we talked, I said well what caused the house down
the street to get a variance. Well they’re not on a slope and, or on the bluff and I said,
that’s impossible. There’s no way and I think if you look at the topography and you
follow it across, you know I mean, it just comes down to it’s up, and when Sharmeen told
me that it’s up to your surveyor.
Steve Monson: Yeah, just like our survey you know, it’s just 2 feet either way you know.
It could be plus or minus however the surveyor set up where he’s taken the actual or put
the stake you know and shoots it. You know if he was over 1 foot farther this way or
towards the slope or towards the back and down at the toe, you know. Where is he on the
toe? I mean we’re only 2 feet, saying that we’re on a bluff.
Sacchet: So it’s pretty much borderline is what you’re saying?
16
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Steve Monson: Yeah, I mean it’s just, and that’s the same way is with this other guy’s
house down there. He had the surveyor come in there. You know where did that guy
shoot all the elevations to get that all figured out? Nobody ever could buy that land over
there because it was straight down. You know then somehow they finagled the survey to
make it that it’s not in a bluff. That house is on stilts.
Sacchet: You’re referring to the house to the northwest of you or?
Steve Monson: It’s to the west. It’s right on the same bluff. Just follow that bluff
around. So it’s to the west.
Sacchet: Yeah, west. Over there. Okay, the skinny one.
Steve Monson: But that’s where, I think what it comes all down to is, how can you,
when I talked to Dan Remer, you know I mean he says, well where did he shoot the
height from. You know because it’s such a small amount. I mean we could have the guy
go out there the next day and say, you know hold your stick over here or hold it over
there, and all we’re just shooting from the hip. We didn’t know if the, now we just had to
get a surveyor out there to take a look at it and now if we could…I suppose if we could
have told him where to put the stick you know.
Sacchet: Put the stake in a different spot.
Steve Monson: Then you know I guess the, getting back to, you know everybody says
we did this after the fact or they put the retaining walls in first and then got the, well we
never had to call to get a, we called to find out about retaining walls but you don’t have to
get a permit unless it’s, so we weren’t doing this to spite.
Sacchet: You even inquired about the retaining wall then?
Mary Pat Monson: We did. We called the building department and they said that as long
as the retaining wall’s under 4 feet, it’s not attached to the house and you’re not
encroaching on another property line, you don’t need a building permit. So when you’ve
got 2 ½ acres, you’ve obviously not encroaching. It didn’t touch the house and it was
under 3 feet so you know.
Sacchet: Yeah, we understand that part. Anything else you’d like to add from your end.
Steve Monson: No, thanks a lot.
Sacchet: Or do we have any questions for you guys?
Claybaugh: Did you hire an excavator to perform the work?
17
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Steve Monson: No, I didn’t it in conjunction with just a friend of mine. We had, you
know a Bobcat and you know. And we just, we all talked about the permit so that’s why
we called.
Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? No? Thank you very much. Now this is
a public hearing. If anybody wants to come forward and comment to this issue in front of
us, we’d appreciate it. Yeah, looks like we have some takers. If you want to give us your
name and address for the record.
Dennis Chadderdon: My name is Dennis Chadderdon and I live at 8900 Audubon, just to
the south of the Monson’s.
Sacchet: You’re right south, okay.
Dennis Chadderdon: Right. I built there 2 years ago and I watched the work that Steve
was doing to prepare for this and he had talked, he was going to put the driveway there
and I didn’t have a problem with it at all. Yeah, this is my property right here.
Sacchet: The other half.
Slagle: You’ve got the tuck under garage?
Dennis Chadderdon: Yes I do, yep. As far as vegetation goes, that whole hill is
completely vegetated over. From when was it, June? When this happened. There’s been
no erosion. That’s one of the things that was a big deal when I was building my home,
was that they were talking about watershed and how much water would come off that
hill. I have a 24 inch culvert that goes underneath my driveway which you could crawl
through there. I mean it’s huge, and the water running off of his property, I have never
had any streams, any ruts or anything coming off of there. And none of the dirt has
moved either, and we’ve got a couple of real good rains you know since then so erosion
in my mind is not a problem for them there. Other than that, I have no problem with
them doing what he’s doing. I don’t think it’s going to be an eye sore or anything like
that from my point of view so just thought I’d give you my thoughts on that.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item?
Seeing nobody getting up, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners.
Discussion. Comments. Anybody want to jump in? Steve.
Lillehaug: I suppose I can. I actually, I support the variance request and I’ll give you my
reasoning. If you look at the contour plan that’s in our packet here, I do the elevation
difference off of contours and boy, it’s right on the bubble and I would expect staff to do
the same thing they did for this report. Very good job on the report. That’s the purpose
is I think this is right on the bubble and so I appreciate you guys bringing it in front of us
but I do support it and the reasoning would be is it’s, one. It’s right on the bubble and
what’s the reason behind protecting the bluff? You know I think it’s to protect the
sightlines of the bluff, etc, and if you look where this garage is going, it’s going down the
18
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
slope 8 feet plus or minus, and the top of the building, what’s it going to cover up? It’s
going to cover up their driveway, their house and their garage so I really don’t see it
being a huge impact to the bluff. Do they have any other reasonable options? I don’t
believe they do. They have one flat spot on their property, but they don’t have any way
to provide access to it. 2.5 acres, I think it’s reasonable to put another garage on a
property that size. Everything I’m seeing, you know I don’t see anything that was done
intentionally trying to skirt the bluff ordinance by Mr. and Mrs. Monson so I’m in
support of it.
Sacchet: That’s good. Anybody else wants to comment or any discussion points?
Papke: As is the tradition I will, I take the opposite stance. I believe in this particular
case the, given the proximity to Bluff Creek, I think it would have been prudent before
doing the excavation, just to call the city and say geez, we’re 200 feet above the creek, or
200 feet away from the creek or so. We’re on the side of a hill. Is there anything we
need to do? It just would have been prudent.
Mary Pat Monson: We’re 400 feet, we measured it.
Papke: 400 feet, I’m sorry. It’s a small map. But it’s still, it’s, it is up the hill from the
creek and granted there’s a lot of vegetation there. But, and I agree with Steve that
certainly on a plot of that size, it would certainly be nice to have another garage added on
to my 3 car garage, but I don’t think that constitutes a hardship so I don’t support this
variance.
Sacchet: Thanks. Any other comments? You want to say something Craig?
Claybaugh: Yeah. I agree with Commissioner Lillehaug that, in terms of calculations
that the bluff is debatable. We’re on the bubble. I believe that the applicant attempted to
do due diligence within their experience with land issues and construction. It is large lot
property. I don’t see a problem with having an additional structure on the site. It’s one
of the benefits of living on a large lot. And with respect to hardship, once a person gets
down the road that far with respect to planning and the rest of it, I personally am not
prepared to penalize the applicant having found that they have tried to do due diligence
and didn’t get here as Commissioner Lillehaug commented by trying to skirt any of the
bluff issues so within that context I’m prepare to support the applicant.
Sacchet: Okay. Does staff agree that this is somewhat on the bubble? Somewhat a
border line case.
Al-Jaff: I believe that to follow, for the registered land surveyor, I think that’s why we
hire them, or the applicant would hire them in this case. Because they’re professional.
Lillehaug: Close?
Sacchet: Close.
19
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Lillehaug: Close may be a better term.
Sacchet: It’s close.
Claybaugh: Marginal.
Sacchet: Marginally close. Well it’s good we hear the neighbor to the south is okay with
it. It’s a tricky thing. I mean we’re kind of punishing the honest one here, which is not a
desirable thing. Then on the other hand yeah Kurt, you have a point. I mean we know
that Bluff Creek is a sensitive thing and I’m sure it’s one of the amenities that you
actually enjoy there, living in that particular place. We need how much of a vote for this
to pass, or what is it?
Al-Jaff: Only one of you can go against it.
Sacchet: Only one. How about if one abstains?
Al-Jaff: Then it’s a recommendation and it goes back to City Council.
Sacchet: Then it goes to council. Because I’m struggling with, is whether maybe this
should go to council frankly. I mean I really sympathize with the applicant personally. I
think it’s very obvious that the applicant did everything possible to do the right thing and
I don’t see anything there that, I mean yes, it was done without a permit but it didn’t need
a permit per se, except that it’s in a bluff and they were not aware it was in a bluff. Now
should they have known it’s in a bluff? Well, they didn’t. Now they do. It probably
wasn’t a very pleasant surprise to find out this way. Also what I’m struggling with is, I
mean to restore this is going to have an additional impact, probably more detrimental
impact environmentally than what was done so far. Now, then we can say how much of
that runoff is a real issue. How would they treat that runoff? Would they catch it? I
mean is that something that we looked at how this could be mitigated? I mean because
runoff seems to be the real issue, right?
Saam: Yeah, runoff would lead to erosion and they’re all kind of intertwined.
Lillehaug: I think erosion would be more of the term.
Sacchet: Yeah, not the runoff. The erosion.
Lillehaug: The erosion I think is the concern, in my mind.
Sacchet: It is, and do we know how it slopes? The applicant actually is allowed to speak
just about at any time so if you want to add something.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Steve Monson: Yeah, just a matter of fact. I had talked to Schoells and Madsen, you
know they’re engineers on, taking care of the water runoff and all that kind of thing and
he even talked to Bob.
Sacchet: Bob Generous, yep.
Steve Monson: Jerry over there. He talked to him about a way we can take care of it,
there’s water that runs off. There’s a system that we do where you dig a big trench
behind the garage, or on the south side of the garage.
Sacchet: The down slope.
Steve Monson: A big trench. Fill it with rock or whatever. But they’d do it. They’d
design it and.
Sacchet: Catch it, yeah.
Steve Monson: And then catch the water so it goes into the ground, and down. Instead
of just rushing down the hill. You’d have to have gutters on the garage, and then slope
the front around, it kind of goes…in a corner with this big trench he dug out.
Sacchet: Is there enough room the way it is now with the retaining wall that you would
have room to put like a gravel type of catch for the water?
Steve Monson: Yeah, we’ve already, they’ve looked at it and we’ve already, we can do
that.
Sacchet: So is that, okay. So that would fit actually.
Steve Monson: And it was working and it’d be a good catch basin to catch all the water
coming down the hill and go into there and then into the ground.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. Good addition here. From engineering’s viewpoint, how
valuable is what he’s actually describing here?
Saam: I think he’s describing some sort of French drain type system. Gutters draining
into it and yeah, that’s something we talked about when we were out on site. If it was
approved, how could we take care of the runoff. Instead of just letting it spill right off the
roof right down a steep slope. And it was, what we had talked about was something like
that with a pipe or gutters or some sort of system like that, where we drain it out at the
bottom of a hill possibly, or into the ditch.
Lillehaug: Commissioner Sacchet.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
21
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Lillehaug: You know how do you, looking the whole bluff, how do you view that bluff?
You know just to me it’s right on the bubble for the entire bluff around, all the way to the
west and around to the north. I mean do you see this area as a different portion of the
bluff that we need to preserve as compared to where they just built that house 3 years
back? You know what are we really trying to do here? I mean two properties down they
built a house on approximately the same bluff. Here we’re getting into the bluff by about
8 feet. You know to me the significance of it isn’t any more, or it’s actually less than
building that house on the.
Sacchet: Well we don’t have clear data on the house. I heard staff say it wasn’t
exactly…
Claybaugh: But this goes back to the footprint. This is a much greater impact.
Sacchet: Yes, in terms of size wise.
Lillehaug: Just looking at the hill, I mean to me it’s, it might not be a bluff where that
house was built and here it’s obviously it’s pretty close to being a bluff, or it is a bluff,
but the whole character of the whole side of the hill, I mean to me it doesn’t change and
why penalize Mr. Monson. Mr. and Mrs. Monson, I guess I’m not going to say any more
on it. You know my opinion.
Sacchet: I hear it. I hear, and it’s…
Steve Monson: If you want I have pictures of that house he’s talking about.
Sacchet: Do you want to put it on the table there? Do you want to help him Sharmeen to
put in the right spot? Okay. Just turn them upside down and then we see it upside down.
So that’s the other house that.
Steve Monson: Another view we’re talking about.
Sacchet: Yeah, and those are bigger retaining walls than your’s.
Steve Monson: Well it’s just more, way more of a slope. The guy has a driveway that
cuts back like this to get down to his house. That’s what is so, I mean that’s the street
here and he’s got his driveway there. It cuts back 3 different times before he gets down
there.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Well, I think if we can put in a very clear
condition of that gravel type of catch of water, I would consider this reasonable enough to
pass it through. That’s my personal opinion of this. Now I’m not necessarily going to
be in a position to formulate exactly how we would phrase that particular condition.
Claybaugh: Something like capturing it with a French drain.
22
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: The French drain is the term that expresses it clearly? Okay. Alright. Now,
my main concern is the precedent aspect. The hardship, it’s reasonable under the
circumstances from many different angles. But the precedence part, how can we, does
that need to be more balanced? Is there any comments from fellow commissioners on
that?
Claybaugh: I think whether, we had someone come in before that was looking at putting
in a pool or a Sport Court and they had done something previously and they got into
being over the hard surface allowance. I think every time we’ve run into these we’ve
looked at it, whether someone was trying to skirt a code or ordinance issue versus
someone trying and attempting to the best of their ability to do due diligence with what’s
in front of them.
Sacchet: Yeah, it’s pretty clear that we have due diligence here.
Claybaugh: Beyond that I don’t think we’ve ever been able to articulate anything.
Sacchet: Alright. Somebody want to formulate a motion?
Lillehaug: I’ll make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance 04-33 for the
construction of a garage/storage building in a bluff as shown on the plans stamped
“Received June 22, 2004” with the following conditions, 1 through 10. And then 11 as,
that Matt could maybe clarify and elaborate on to deal with the runoff and erosion from
the building.
Sacchet: French drain.
Slagle: And gutters.
Lillehaug: And gutters, yep.
Claybaugh: Why don’t we say French drain system?
Sacchet: French drain system, is that what you call it? French drain system. Yeah, let’s
use that.
Claybaugh: Can we also add that they’re coordinate that with staff?
Sacchet: Coordinate that with staff, okay. So that would be, have to be submitted in
terms of a plan to get the permit.
Claybaugh: Prefer that.
Saam: Yeah, we already have the survey required so we’ll just work with them off of
that to make sure the French drain gets incorporated in that.
23
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Claybaugh: But with respect to the design of the French drain system, if that could be
required to be submitted to staff or engineering for approval.
Sacchet: Is that an acceptable friendly amendment Steve?
Lillehaug: Yes.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Claybaugh: Second.
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission approves
Variance #04-33 for the construction of a garage/storage building in a bluff as
shown on the plans stamped “Received June 22, 2004”, with the following
conditions:
1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance
or it shall become void.
2. The proposed addition must be built per plans stamped “Received June 22, 2004”.
3. The applicant must submit plans for the ramp before proceeding with
construction.
4. An after the fact building permit for grading must be applied for.
5. The graded slope must e entirely reinforced with a retaining wall which will
require a building permit; or must be restored to a slope less than 3:1.
6. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
Type of Slope
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a temporary or
permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man-made system that discharges to
any surface water.
7. Permanent native vegetation shall be installed on the slopes to minimize the
potential for future slope failure.
24
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
8. Submit an existing topographic survey signed by an RLS (registered land
surveyor). The survey must show the following:
a. Location of the retaining wall with top and bottom elevations.
b. Driveway location and slope.
c. Garage floor elevation.
9. The driveway must be hard surfaced and comply with City Code Sec. 20-1122
(attached).
10. No home occupation or business use will be permitted in the existing attached
garage or proposed detached garage/storage building, as stated in City Code 20-
977:
“…No garage or accessory buildings except accessory agriculture buildings
existing on February 19, 1987 shall be used for any home occupation.”
11. The applicant shall submit for staff approval and construct a French
drainage system, along with gutters on the garage/storage building.
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
5 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER PUD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE USES (CENTURY PLAZA
RETAIL CENTER), PLANNING CASE NO. 04-35.
Public Present:
Name Address
Paul Andrescik 710 Debbie Lane, Carver
Timothy Bohlman 7500 W. 78th Street, Edina
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Yes, this is questions. You can ask questions of staff, go ahead.
Tjornhom: I have a question Sharmeen. When you say health and physical exercise
clubs, do you also mean like Curves? Places like that. Would they be included in those?
You know what I’m saying when I mention Curves?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
25
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: What’s Curves?
Al-Jaff: It’s a very good question.
Tjornhom: Well wait, wait.
Sacchet: Oh Curves. I get it. I know what Curves is. Yep.
Al-Jaff: Okay. One of the things that we discussed in house is how do you differentiate
between Curves and Lifetime. I mean both of those are health clubs. And under our
current ordinances, current definitions there are no differences between them so yes.
That would include Curves.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Claybaugh: But certainly wouldn’t the 5,000 square feet, in terms of scale, help to
balance that equation?
Al-Jaff: Yes it would.
Claybaugh: That’s one mitigating element.
Sacchet: Any other questions of staff? Steve.
Lillehaug: I have one question. What did the City Council do with the recent similar
request we got from the southwest quadrant?
Al-Jaff: I believe they turned it down. It was retail to be introduced into the building,
yeah.
Sacchet: Any other questions? I do have one question. Neighborhood business. I was
trying to figure out how do we define neighborhood business, and you actually gave one
clue. You said kind of daily use of the residents. So if you apply that, well we hope we
don’t need to buy an appliance every day. That certainly is very hopeful. We could say
we do daily exercise, but we don’t include that into neighborhood business. Because?
I’m just trying to use a measuring stick. Trying to be consistent. You see what I’m
doing?
Al-Jaff: I believe, and I haven’t done the research behind it but I believe it’s different
because our ordinance does not differentiate between, I used Lifetime as an example
earlier. Between a Lifetime scale development, which will generate a lot of traffic.
Sacchet: So it’s a traffic concern to some extent?
26
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Al-Jaff: That’s one thing. And then you end up drawing from a much larger radius than
you would from just one or two neighborhoods that are immediately next to this
development.
Sacchet: Then lawn and garden is probably not a daily use. We hope that liquor is not a
daily use. The radio and the television studio, we probably don’t use that every day
either. Okay, there it applies pretty well. Use that as a yard stick. Okay, thanks. Are we
ready to listen to the applicant? If the applicant wants to come forward. Maybe you can
give us some insight of why specifically those items are of importance. Maybe give us a
little framework.
Tjornhom: I had one more.
Sacchet: Oh Bethany had one more question. You can stay right there.
Tjornhom: And this is probably nit picky I don’t know but you have Exhibit A, page 2.
Was there a page 1? Were there more things? On page 1 that was listed.
Al-Jaff: If you would just give me one moment.
Tjornhom: Were they duplicates?
Sacchet: Yeah, we have two page 2’s and no page 1. So that’s a good question Bethany.
We have two page 2’s so that would lead us to suspect there’s a page 1 we don’t see.
Al-Jaff: I have the actual file with me so. I apologize.
Sacchet: So there is a corresponding page 1, okay. If you can pass that around quickly to
look at. While we look at that, if the applicant, you’re there. If you want to state your
name and address for the record and tell us what you want to add to this.
Timothy Bohlman: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the board for letting me
come and present my applicant this evening. My name is Timothy Bohlman. I am
Senior Project Manager for Minstar Builders and Arboretum Exchange LLC. I guess the
first thing I’d like to talk about is that while the staff report characterizes my application
as seeking an expansion of the uses allowed at Century Plaza, I really don’t see it as an
expansion so much as a clarification. Some of the questions that members of the board
had asked of Sharmeen here a couple of minutes ago sort of make that point is that the
ordinance that is currently in place today, at best is vague and confusing and just requires
frequent, almost case by case request for individual approval every time we would seek
to execute a lease from the city staff. What we’re really trying to do here is to modify the
PUD for this development to give us a very specific, clear picture of what we can and
cannot have in this shopping center. The reason that the list that you’re passing around
right now was submitted is, about 2 years ago now I was project manager on a similar
site. A similar building in Cottage Grove on it’s northeast frontier across town from it’s
major business districts. Very similar to what we’re talking about here. This is sort of
27
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
the edge of Chanhassen and is removed and separated by the entirety of Chanhassen from
it’s main business districts. I guess the other thing I should clarify is that, along with that
is exactly what uses we’re trying to have here. The five uses that were just spoken about
before I stepped up here were called out because of the fact that in staff’s review over the
list I had proposed, which was from the PUD in that Cottage Grove center, they said they
were all fine except for these 5 and so that’s kind of how they got called out. We don’t
today have anybody proposing to put a radio station studio in the center. We don’t today
have anybody wanting to put in a lawn and garden center. Those were just all things that
the citizens, Planning Commission, staff and City Council of the city of Cottage Grove
came up with as these are an all encompassing list of everything you might see and
commonly want to have in a neighborhood convenience shopping center. They were so
happy with it as a matter of fact that immediately after passing the PUD that we had
written for the shops at Ellamar Village, they adopted that and codified it as an actual
zoning ordinance and every other neighborhood convenience retail center since that time
has followed that exact list. When the PUD for Century Plaza, or Arboretum Village was
initially reviewed by this body and the council and staff and approved, many of the
specific uses that are in my proposed list were not specifically discussed and that’s just
because we reasonably assumed that the permitted uses definition provided in the existing
PUD code and the BN business district code would allow for the things you commonly
see in a neighborhood convenience shopping center. Everything that isn’t specifically
listed, there’s 14 different things listed in the BN district code as it exists today, and of
the, aside from the maybe half a dozen of them that are fairly specific, like daycare center
or veterinary clinics, most of the other ones are awfully vague. And I’m only saying that
not to pick apart your code but simply to point out the fact that the reason we weren’t
having this conversation back then is that we reasonably assumed that say for instance an
off sale liquor store in a specialty neighborhood, less than 5,000 square feet kind of sense,
would fit within say number 12, specialty retail shops, and we had no idea that we would
ever have a problem trying to put in such a use in a neighborhood convenient center.
Going back to the Cottage Grove center for just one more second, I actually went out
there today to visit with the proprietor of the off sale liquor store that I had leased and put
into that center. Kind of catch up and refresh my memory of exactly what it looks like
and what kind of a place it is. The build out is incredible. It’s very much an upscale sort
of a feel. He has everything in there from the more common sundry items like you know
beer selections, table wines, to Dom Perignon and Louis the XIII cognac. Cigars. Gift
items. Crystal wine glasses. Cigar cutters. Lighters, etc, etc. The floor is dyed and
varnished concrete like you would see in you know Redstone or one of these kinds of
restaurants. It’s just a very nice, warm feeling shop. It’s not MGM liquor warehouse.
It’s not Byerly’s Wine and Spirits. It’s not Gwill Liquors. It’s completely not that. It
does not compete with those businesses. Cottage Grove has those too in their main
business districts. And the people who are in that part of town or who are going to stock
up for whatever kind of a function they have, continue to go to those places. The people
that frequent this particular shop are by and large those who live in the immediate area of
that retail center or drive by it every day on their way home. In the 90 minutes that I
spent there today, I only was able to speak with Steve for less than a third of that and that
was because he had to keep excusing himself every few minutes to go and wait on the
steady stream of customers that kept coming in the front door. It struck me that this is the
28
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
middle of a Tuesday afternoon and he’s got some pretty good business going here.
People are stopping in to pick up some of these items on their way home for you know,
for dinner this evening or maybe a celebration party if they had a good week picking
football over the weekend or something like that. Whatever it was, but that seems to fit
that daily needs definition. I mean this was the middle of a Tuesday afternoon and he
was having such good business that I couldn’t carry on a conversation with the fella, and
that’s the kind of thing I’m trying to get across to you of what we’re trying to do here
with that particular use. Out of the 5 uses that we’re talking about, the other one that is
fairly important to us and maybe the other ones aren’t so important is the health and
exercise club. In particular I didn’t want to mention too many name brands but since you
already did, the Curves is a good example. Most people know what that is. Again, that’s
a whole different animal than Lifetime Fitness. I know my wife and my sister in law and
several of their friends wouldn’t be caught dead at Lifetime. You know for various
reasons that are their own and I don’t want to go into with them, but they love Curves
you know. It’s I guess less intimidating is what my wife says. You know it’s not the
same deal. And so in a similar sense, I live in Lakeville. They’re talking about building
one of these new community centers with Lifetime or somebody built into it and yet 3
little neighborhood convenience retail centers in town, 3, have a Curves or a Fitness 19 or
there’s 3 different ones. Again they don’t conflict, they don’t compete. It’s a different
service. Just because you can go to both and lift weights doesn’t mean that they’re the
same deal. And basically the point is that the BN, the underlying BN code that puts that
overall restriction on that any of the uses that you have in there can’t be more than 5,000
square feet is really the limiting factor. You know you can have anything else that you
have in your main business district. You know Byerly‘s, grocery store. Huge right?
Well, there’s nothing to say that I couldn’t have a Kenny’s Market here, you know as
long as there’s not gas pumps I guess or actually part of our PUD was allowing gas
pumps. But obviously nobody would make the point that Kenny’s Market or Holiday
Station competes and would put Byerly’s under you know. So it’s just part of the
vagueness and the ambiguity that’s in the code as it is, which is what we’re here seeking
to correct. To simply know that these are the uses that people expect in these kind of
centers. One of the things that I also thought was particularly confusing is that in the
code, in the BN business district, one of the specifically allowed uses is number 7,
offices. And yet in the staff report, in the findings of fact section 4, subsection (a), the
report says that, and I’m going to paraphrase. It says that office uses, I’m sorry, retail
uses would be inconsistent with office and industrial type uses and so therefore they’re
not allowed. So the finding of fact in this staff report tells me anyway, maybe I’m
reading it wrong, but it says an office use would not be allowed because it’s inconsistent
with retail, and yet the BN code specifically says offices are allowed. One other such sort
of a conundrum would be that in the BN district, number 6 home furnishings is an
allowed use in a neighborhood convenience retail center. Obviously as I said before, if
there were to be such a store in our shop, it would be less than 5,000 square feet. It
would be, you know home furniture would have absolutely nothing to worry about as far
as competition being put under by such a store. My question is, how many people do you
know would pull into a center like mine to pick up a gallon of milk and a sofa on their
way home on a daily basis? I don’t see that and so I think that actually wouldn’t need to
be in the list you know really. Along with probably the lawn and garden center. I don’t
29
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
know that that’s a particularly popular, critical type of use either, but there is a core set of
uses no matter what your own personal needs are. If you just step back for a second and
think of what you see in these centers and what you and your friends and your family
members would normally want to have if you lived in the townhomes immediately
adjacent to this center, you want to have a dry cleaner. You want to have a hair cut place.
You want to have probably like a Subway sandwich shop. You want to have, maybe not
you all personally but some of you may want to have an off sale liquor store there where
you can stop in. Geez, friends are over. I’m a little bit low on Miller Lite. I’d better run
over there and grab a 12 pack, or pick up a bottle of wine today for dinner. Whatever the
case may be, it needs to be there for you if, for that convenience type purpose. One of the
most important and probably, I guess about the last point I’ll make because I don’t want
to take up your entire evening, is that going to what I heard said about the fact that the
city has a total of 4 licenses. 3 are in use. There’s 1 available. Do you need to have
another one in the same 4 block radius that the other 3 stores are in right now? Or would
it be better to have one somewhere else in this kind of a use to pick up that revenue and
keep it in Chanhassen because, let me point this out to you. If we were not to have such a
use in Century Plaza, the people who live out there in those townhomes and the people
that work there in those, in the business park, are going to go to the next most convenient
location to pick up those types of things on their way home, and if you define next most
convenient by proximity, it’s not Chanhassen central business district. If I can put this up
on. Zoom it out a bit. Is that possible? Well you can’t really see it on the screen there
anyway. I guess it’s better if I just hold it up and I’ll pass it around to you up there.
What I’ve put together is simply a proximity map that shows Century Plaza and picks out
every off sale liquor, retail liquor store within a 3 mile radius of that location. The first
closest one today is the Shorewood liquor stores at 41 and 7 in Excelsior. Fully half a
th
mile closer than is Byerly’s Wines and Spirits on 78 Street. The next closest is Pass By
Liquors at Chestnut and Pioneer in Chaska. The next is Tonka Bay liquor store in
Excelsior. Only then do you get to MGM Liquors and Cheers Wine and Spirits. So if
we’re looking to have convenience for the neighborhoods, which is I think the spirit of
what we’re trying to accomplish here. Obviously the Curves type of health club and this
type of an off sale retail liquor store are two of the basic uses that that kind of center
should have, and if they’re not allowed, those uses will be sought out by those residents
and those business daytime residents wherever is the next closest place to go. Most
convenience place, and that isn’t necessarily in downtown Chanhassen so if you like I’ll
pass this around so you can have a peek at it.
Sacchet: Sure. Alright.
Timothy Bohlman: I think that about covers it for me. I’ll be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
Sacchet: Any questions for the applicant? Craig, you do?
Claybaugh: Actually I have a question for staff. I guess I’ll just throw it out there
because now I’m a little bit confused. If we’re looking not necessarily at excluding
things and the applicant is looking for clarification.
30
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: Do we want to see whether we have questions for the applicant maybe first
before, can we hold this just for a second?
Claybaugh: Sure.
Sacchet: Let’s finish with the applicant if you don’t mind Craig.
Slagle: I’ve got one, and I’m trying to go back to when we first saw this however many
years ago, and the parcels to the south of you, which is the gas station and then we have
the car wash and then to the east of that we have the new office. I’ll make one comment
and then I want to ask you. The comment I want to make is, I don’t know if you were
here for our discussion on the office.
Al-Jaff: No, he wasn’t.
Slagle: Okay. There was some discussion afterwards if we did the right thing. About
offices so your question centering on offices, as the question are they part of a
neighborhood business district is right on target, because I think had some of us had
another chance, our vote might have been different. I want to preface it by that. Here’s
my question. Has the ownership of this parcel changed because I remember a gentleman
from Waconia coming before us with the Dunn Brothers Coffee Shop and the gas station.
Al-Jaff: And you turned it down.
Slagle: And we turned it down.
Al-Jaff: You turned down the drive thru.
Slagle: Correct. Turned down the drive thru and then where have you come into play, if
I can ask. Your company.
Timothy Bohlman: Well we are the original purchaser of that commercial outlot from the
larger mixed use development. Arboretum Exchange LLC is simply the holding
company for the shopping center. We bought the property. We hired, this was before I
came on board with the company. The company hired a private consultant individual like
myself to come in and gain the entitlement approvals at that time. And then subsequently
the improvements were installed with the subdivision of the property. The c-store lot was
sold off and the office building location was never a part of our deal. That was purchased
separately from the original development, by that development.
Slagle: Okay.
Timothy Bohlman: So I don’t know if I answered your question there but as far as I
understand, Ron Clark Construction, which is the master company of Minstar Builders
31
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
and all these other entities. We are the original purchaser of the raw land from the bigger
development.
Slagle: Okay. And let me ask this question then. With your comment of trying to clarify
as to what can be brought in or not brought in, which I certainly appreciate your desire.
Are you having issues leasing space there?
Timothy Bohlman: We are having some issues in getting the space leased out as fully
and quickly as we would have expected. Some of that is just market factors and then
some of that is the uncertainty as to what we can and cannot have in the center. Right
now one of the our most interested, how do I put this? One of the uses that people are
most interested in putting in there is the off sale liquor store. That’s one of the two main
reasons that I’m here this evening, and like I said. The other three uses there are
probably not as important and were only submitted as part of that larger list. But the
small scale health club and the off sale liquor store are two very important uses we feel,
and right now we have 3 distinctly separate operators currently in business elsewhere in
the immediate suburban area who want to put in another new location on this site for the
specialty off sale liquor type of an establishment, so there again that speaks to the
desirability of that type of a use in this kind of a scenario.
Slagle: Okay. So last question then, center on the liquor, or the off sale. Is it your
opinion that a liquor store would be defined as a value to that immediate neighborhood,
and call the immediate neighborhood 2 miles in any direction?
Timothy Bohlman: Absolutely it would. It would be an asset not only to the immediate
neighborhood but also to the immediate business community meaning the center itself.
Within any kind of a retail center where there is multiple users in a leased space
environment, one of the factors that helps those individual businesses succeed and grow
as well as supports the profitability and the viability of the building itself are the inter-
dependencies. The synergies that those businesses have with each other. You want
businesses that everybody stops by on their way home from work because if they stop
there, they’re also on the way back to their car going to run in there and grab that too,
okay. So that’s why you want to have a popular lunch time sandwich shop kind of a
function because when people stop in there for lunch to have that sandwich, they’re going
to go oh yeah. I also need to stop over here and drop off my dry cleaning and vice versa,
and they all work together to draw customers to themselves, that they also then share with
everybody else in the building. And some of the strongest draws for that customer base
are the 6 or 8 different uses that I rattled off here a few minutes ago.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions of this applicant? Not off hand, okay. Thank you very
much.
Timothy Bohlman: Thank you.
32
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: Do we want to put questions to staff in there Craig? Before we go into the
public hearing.
Claybaugh: Yeah. For the applicant’s use for clarification request, but what do we have
in front of us? Let’s see if I can go to the recommendation here.
Al-Jaff: We don’t have an issue with, I mean the applicant submitted approximately 80
different types of uses and as he stated, he had difficulty, he thought that the city
ordinance was confusing so basically we took each of the requested uses and compared it
against what our ordinance permitted, and out of the 80, approximately 80 uses, we found
5 that we strongly felt that they did not meet the intent of a neighborhood business
district. One of the things that the applicant mentioned was he wanted to define those
uses so he doesn’t have to contact staff every time there is a space to be leased. We want
to be contacted. That is essential for us. This is our only opportunity to insure that there
is adequate parking. The use is actually permitted. And it’s really, this is the first time
we run into an issue like this. We have a couple other neighborhood business districts
and again staff always welcomes phone calls. We welcome working with applicants and
property owners so that’s our job. That’s what we’re here for. Another thing the
applicant mentioned was that this project, that he was able to manage in Cottage Grove
permitted all of those uses. There are certain types of things that probably happen in the
City of Chanhassen that might not work for the City of Cottage Grove, and vice versa.
This is Chanhassen and you have our recommendation. Staff is recommending that.
Claybaugh: Right. I guess what I was confused about is when the applicant came up
initially it was, or I understood it, that it wasn’t for a specific purpose. The more he got
into the presentation, the more it took on a tone that there was a couple specific uses that
they had in mind and it seemed like the request for clarification was broader than we have
written in our summary of request, but if I understand you, it’s just the 5 that didn’t
comply with the list that was submitted to you and that’s what we’re voting on? Nothing
any broader and does that meet what the applicant is after?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Claybaugh: But my question was, how that helps with the clarification of, it just seems
like there was a broader question being asked, and I’m just trying to identify how we’re
going to address that, or if there is anything there to address.
Al-Jaff: They gave us the list of uses that I sent out earlier. You were looking at and of
that entire list there were a few uses that did not fit our definition of neighborhood
business district.
Slagle: But let me be clear on this too. We have in essence an applicant saying here’s 80
things that I might want to do. Giving it to staff and staff determining that 75 are not
conforming. I mean it’s sort of, I’m just letting you know, that sort of doesn’t seem
official. I mean other words, it seems like they should be coming to us with an
33
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
application that’s specific and we say yes or no. I guess what I’m trying to say is, if we
vote and say no, you know these 5.
Sacchet: We’re endorsing 75 others.
Slagle: Yeah, and I guess what I’m saying is if they came in and said this is the 5 uses
we want and we say no, are they going to be back in 3 weeks from now with 5 more, or is
your approval of the 75 all they need?
Al-Jaff: Our approval of the 75 is all they need. I mean and please remember that we do
this with development around the city all the time. Someone comes in and says
Sharmeen, there’s a dry cleaner that wants to go into that specific district. I open the
ordinance and it says okay, specialty retail or daily service types of use, and I look at the
use that they are proposing. Does it meet that definition? If I couldn’t make that decision
I will go to the Community Development Director. She the authority, you’ve given her
the authority to make that interpretation. We also have an industrial classification book.
That’s another resource that’s available to us. Every single imaginable use is within that
book and it breaks it down as to what district these type of uses can go into so we have
several resources and we make those decisions on a daily basis.
Slagle: Okay. Just want to be clear.
Papke: Also question for staff. On the liquor license. As a planning commission we
quite often have to make trade off’s between things being a viable business. Putting
something where there isn’t any competition versus clustering things together for
aesthetic purposes or whatever. That’s part of what we do. I want to make sure I
understand the spirit of the comprehensive plan as it regards to off sale liquors. Is it the
intent that we want to constrain, regardless of the viability of the business itself, the
liquor stores, the off sale liquor stores to the downtown area. Is that what we’re trying to
get to?
Al-Jaff: It’s downtown, general business district as well as highway business district.
And if you look at our zoning map, that is truly the area that surrounding downtown
areas.
Papke: So quite clearly this one, although as the applicant stated would be very viable
due to the lack of competition in that area, that’s directly in conflict to what we’re trying
to get to from our comprehensive plan?
Al-Jaff: Right. That’s very true.
Papke: Okay, thank you.
Slagle: I’ve got one more.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
34
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Slagle: Just touching upon Kurt’s comment. Where does the highway district stop as
you go westward on 5?
th
Al-Jaff: West on 5, it stops at, north of West 79 Street.
Slagle: But as you head west.
Al-Jaff: Market Boulevard. Because anything beyond Market becomes general business
district.
Slagle: Okay. So I guess what I’m, maybe a different way to ask it is, based upon your
definition of where, let’s just say the city would be okay with an off sale liquor store.
What is the furthest western most boundary?
Al-Jaff: Target.
Slagle: Target? Okay. So no further west than Powers?
Al-Jaff: No.
Slagle: Okay.
Tjornhom: I have some questions. You said that the city has 4 liquor licenses available
and 3 are in use. How does one go about to apply for a liquor license? What is the
process of doing that?
Al-Jaff: I would transfer you to Karen Engelhardt.
Sacchet: It’s City Council. It’s not Planning Commission.
Tjornhom: Right. Right.
Al-Jaff: It’s a City Council procedure.
Tjornhom: I guess what I’m getting at is it because, you know if they wanted to put a
Curves in, we don’t have a certain amount of licenses for exercising do we.
Al-Jaff: No, that’s correct.
Tjornhom: It’s just for liquor that we have these. I just feel that if we would change our
mind about this and allow this in the BN district, we have to open it up to everybody
that’s in that district all over the city then to make it fair, because everyone else has been
complying with our ordinances and so now we’re opening it up to something that I don’t
think we don’t want to go there, do we? Necessarily.
35
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Al-Jaff: I think you’ve got staff’s recommendation.
Tjornhom: Right.
Al-Jaff: We believe that these types of uses belong in a neighborhood business district.
Tjornhom: Right, and I think also when you do start opening up liquor stores, you do
have a certain element of maybe worrying about more crime in that area. Or maybe not.
I don’t know. Okay, well.
Al-Jaff: I don’t know. I haven’t investigated…
Tjornhom: I don’t have a problem with the whole Curves thing going in there because I
don’t think Curves really is a, would be competing with Lifetime Fitness or anything else.
I think it’s a 30 minute deal, you go in. You go out and you’re done but I guess I just
think that you know, because there’s one license, it would not seem right to change the
rules when everyone else has been complying with for a long time.
Sacchet: Okay. Steve. We’re still in questions actually. I want to remind you we
haven’t opened the public hearing yet so. We kind of got back into staff questions to
staff here somewhere.
Lillehaug: Well I’ve got just two quick ones. So we have our 14 definitions here that are
permitted in the BN district. Specialty retail shops. So you’re saying that is clearly
defined on what applications actually fall into a specialty retail shop, and there’s really no
question about it? I mean it’s defined pretty clearly?
Al-Jaff: It’s defined pretty clearly but here is the other thing. Liquor stores are spelled
out in other districts and there’s a reason why. I mean we look at the list of permitted
uses throughout the city. And liquor stores are permitted in specific districts. And the
neighborhood business is not one of them.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright. This is a public hearing so I’d like to invite anybody who wants to
address this to come forward. And I see nobody getting up so I close the public hearing.
So we did that. Discussion. Comments. Well we heard some positions here based on the
questions to some extent. Do we need more discussions? I mean I think there are a
couple of discussion points really the applicant touched on. But I’ll hold back with that.
See whether you guys have anything to add in terms of discussion or comments.
Lillehaug: Well I think staff hit it right on. We’re being vague to a point where we want
to be vague. We want them to go to staff. We want them to look at the uses so I disagree
with the applicant. He indicated that we’re vague but I think it’s clear and I think it’s
what we want. And I don’t support any of these other uses.
36
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: Okay. So, and the applicant made it relatively clear that there is no conflict
except with off sale liquor store I think there seemed to be clearly an interest, but it looks
like the other ones were just to clarify. And we already elaborate quite a bit about the
liquor store reasoning in terms of our framework here for the city. In terms of the
comprehensive plan. I don’t know whether we need to touch on that more. Again you
mentioned it Sharmeen whether it’s allowed in other cities or not, is not irrelevant but
then in the end it’s not a deciding factor either. I mean we, and I agree with your
comment Steve that you made it pretty clear Sharmeen that this is about as specific as we
want to be because we want to see it in the context of the other aspects. Now what we’re
doing here is just a recommendation to City Council. This is going to go up to City
Council either way so I want to point that out for the applicant. That we’re not making a
decision. We’re making a recommendation to City Council. We are allowing appliances
within the framework. Small scale. That we say here. The health and physical exercise
club, at first I thought well. I mean if across the street is a huge health club, if somebody
has the ambition that they can pull it off across the street with something that
distinguishes itself, why not just allow it? I mean it’s a daily use so I could make peace
with a small scale health and fitness component in there. Because I would think the
market forces would balance that properly and the size of what we have in there. Now
did you see a conflict with that one in terms of neighborhood business concept?
Al-Jaff: As long as, and again we had this discussion in house because our ordinance
does not differentiate between a large scale Lifetime Fitness type of health club versus
Curves. But stay consistent with what our ordinance says and again.
Sacchet: Okay, you made that clear before. I’m clear about that. So possibly if we
would make a distinction here for this particular case, they say small scale health.
Al-Jaff: Not to exceed 5,000 square feet.
Sacchet: I think I could make peace with that. Then florist is allowed but we don’t allow
a lawn and garden because we don’t want to get into the request of people wanting to
store, storing mulch or what have you in the back yard. And yeah, the television studios,
that’s hard to reconcile as a daily need of a neighborhood. Let’s see. In terms of the
inconsistencies, just for the applicant’s benefit. I mean when we say offices are allowed
on this list, and you found it kind of conflicting with the concept of, was it in the office
industrial use. I think it’s important to point out that office industrial use as a term in the
zoning context. So it’s really, it’s how we define a particular grouping of what we
address in our zoning. That’s about my comments. Anybody else want to add anything
to this? Somebody want to venture a motion?
Papke: I’ll give it a shot. I’d like to recommend a motion that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment 04-35 to include
health and physical exercise clubs and appliance sales and service that do not exceed
5,000 square feet based upon the two conditions listed in the staff report.
37
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Sacchet: Point of clarification from staff. Does that fulfill what we need to do here? I
mean it’s, if we don’t mention the.
Al-Jaff: The request in front of you today looks at permitting or denying the 5 uses. So
may I rephrase what, okay. What you can say is, the Planning Commission recommends
denial of PUD Amendment 04-35 to include health and physical exercise clubs that
exceeds 5,000. Lawn and garden centers with no exterior storage and display, off sale
liquor store, radio and television studios and appliance sales and service that exceed
5,000.
Papke: Okay, got it. Would you like me to re-state?
Sacchet: As stated.
Papke: As stated.
Sacchet: Alright. Do we have a second?
Tjornhom: Second it.
Sacchet: Now I have an issue though.
Slagle: You can’t say it and then.
Sacchet: I’m making an amendment.
Claybaugh: Right. The way this is worded, liquor store up to 5,000 square feet.
Slagle: Would be allowed.
Claybaugh: Would be allowed.
Sacchet: And the lawn and garden center that has an exterior storage would be allowed
because we only exclude the ones without.
Slagle: Correct.
Sacchet: That’s an issue.
Claybaugh: Correct.
Al-Jaff: May I re-phrase again.
Sacchet: Please.
Claybaugh: Please do.
38
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Papke: Or I can take a stab.
Sacchet: Want to give it a stab Kurt?
Papke: I recommend that the Planning Commission denies the Planning Unit
Development Amendment 04-35 to include all, let’s see. Denies approval of all health
and physical exercise clubs that exceed 5,000 square feet, all lawn and garden centers, all
off sale liquor stores, all radio and television studios and all appliance sales and services
that exceed 5,000 square feet based upon the two conditions listed in the staff report.
Lillehaug: Point of clarification. Number 11 of the permitted uses includes small
appliance repair shops. Do we want to put a limit on that now by saying 5,000 square
feet?
Al-Jaff: The best…was any use that comes into that specific.
Sacchet: So we don’t need anything stated? I mean all of them, yes. Craig.
Claybaugh: We still need to take another run at it. We need to lose the 5,000 square feet
at the end. Just if we take, that the Planning Commission recommends denial and move
the health and physical exercise clubs to the end, and just say recommends denial of 04-
35 to include all lawn and garden centers, all off sale liquor stores, all radio and television
studios, all appliance sales, however to include health and physical exercise clubs up to
5,000 square feet.
Sacchet: Now we also allow appliance sales and services.
Claybaugh: Small appliances. It doesn’t say small appliances.
Sacchet: Okay, oh. Yeah. I see your point. Is that clear enough? Alright, we got a
motion. Do we have a second?
Tjornhom: I think I seconded it.
Sacchet: You already did? Oh yeah, that was...
Tjornhom: The old one.
Sacchet: But we have a new one.
Tjornhom: The new one.
Sacchet: Alright, second the new one.
39
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
Papke moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
denial of Planned Unit Development Amendment #04-35 to include all lawn and
garden centers, all off sale liquor stores, all radio and television studios, all
appliance sales and services, however to include health and physical exercise clubs
up to 5,000 square feet, based upon the following conditions:
1. The district has a reasonable selection of permitted uses.
2. The requested amendments will be in conflict with the comprehensive plan
because the users are not inherently low scale and would be in competition with
commercial development, particularly in the CBD, BG and BH Districts.
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote
of 5 to 1.
Sacchet: Do you want to state why you’re opposed?
Lillehaug: I just support the recommendation as presented by staff. It’s very clear to me
there and I’m not sure if.
Sacchet: Whether we made it clear or more muddy.
Lillehaug: Yeah. I just support what was presented by staff.
Sacchet: Okay. In summary for council, obviously we struggled with the wording of the
motion. What I understand in plain English is that we already allow small appliance sales
and services up to 5,000 square feet in the statement that as it is, so we want to leave that
as is. We don’t want to change that. We feel that if we specify for health and physical
exercise club, if it’s small, and we define small as less than 5,000 square feet which
seems to apply to the neighborhood business district in general, that it would be a matter
of market forces to determine whether something like that would be viable there.
Basically across the street from a large scale health club. We do not want to give further
flexibility in the other cases which is the lawn and garden center with or without outside
storage. The off sale liquor stores goes into a whole other set of aspects with the
comprehensive plan, with the number of liquor licenses we have with the intent of the
city to keep that type of business in the central business district or highway business
district. And then the radio and television studios we really didn’t see any direct
applicability to neighborhood business so that we also don’t want to go in there, so is that
a reasonable summary where we’re at with this? So however that will be phrased in the
end, I think we made our point reasonably clear. And that will go to City Council on the
th
8 of November? So that will be in what, 2 weeks. And they will make a decision based
on staff recommendation, applicant’s presentation and our input. Alright? Good luck
with it.
40
Planning Commission Meeting – October 19, 2004
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Tjornhom noted the summary and
verbatim Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 5, 2004 as
presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
41